Play seems decent. However, a couple of small points. EU9 looks a LOT like EU4. This is admittedly something people will learn over time, but right now, its confusing. Maybe make the 9 more "rounded" at the top or something?

Also, the arrows on EU9 are confusing. In the legend, it says that they connect land to water, but it looks as if the arrow jumps over EU9 and does not connect EU9 to IN2 (though the other one does connect to PA1). Maybe you could either note this in the legend or make the arrow look different (perhaps with dots?)

I think that the arrows are fine (they may however be a bit unnecessary, but I will let Andy decide on that). It is always good to clarify, especially in a map where there are a fair amount of territories.

With all the petty scrutiny i read everday in the foundry , this map is proof that preferential treatment is given to certain members.. The graphics for starters is not up to par with what is being expected in the foundry.. Is this map drawn to scale? Much of the water territories are huge and therefore they take from areas where the circles dont even fit in the region.Also how were the attack routes figured out.. No part of the US can even attack the water .And the east coast of africa not attacking the water either. Now thats just silly. But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

I'm pretty sure the mapmakers didn't have reality in mind when creating this map. In fact I think edbeard stated right away that he was concerned only with the gameplay. I'm glad he approached it this way.

I'm in round 5 of a 3 player game and I'm enjoying it quite a bit. I'm dominating in Territs, but I definitely don't feel like I'm winning. I think the land to sea connections are spread out well to make sure that the game is balanced, but still affording some strongholds.

I love the graphics because they don't try to re-create history or geography class, although I do appreciate that in other maps on the site. It is nice to play a game that looks like a game.

As for preferential treatment, I wouldn't know anything about that. I did skim through this thread and there was certainly resistance to the development of the map. It seems to me that all reasonable requests/concerns were addressed.

While I appreciate seeing the concerns of more and more CC users being expressed here in the foundry, I must say that timing is important as well. This is a case of folks coming in WAY too late to point out something they don't like in a map. Everything that you guys have brought up was discussed months ago. Let's continue...

danfrank wrote:With all the petty scrutiny i read everday in the foundry , this map is proof that preferential treatment is given to certain members.

No, this is proof that not enough CC users take part in the mapmaking process. This map has been in the works for eight months, yet some critics choose to show up after the map has been quenched and make accusations about how this map received preferential treatment. Give me a break. I was the gameplay stamper on this one, and here is one of my many concerns about this map that received no support (from November 6):

oaktown wrote:I can't help but wince when I consider the real-life ramifications behind some of the land-sea connections. The Arctic's only landfall is in Alaska, while seagoing countries like Scotland don't? Quebec has access to the Atlantic while the Eastern US doesn't? The only Pacific port in North America is in Mexico? The only Pacific port in Asia is up where the ports freeze every winter?

Anything here sound familiar? I also lobbied for the addition of the Mediterranean Sea and the Panama Canal. I didn't see either of you guys backing me up on these suggestions. In fact nobody did. So the mapmakers proceeded, and rightly so.

The map is solid from a gameplay perspective. The graphics are clean and user friendly. Those CC users who were good enough to visit the thread and participate were comfortable with the connections as is. Those who did not participate in this map's production can now choose to play it or not. But please, before you go accusing folks of something, do your homework.

oaktown wrote:The map is solid from a gameplay perspective. The graphics are clean and user friendly. Those CC users who were good enough to visit the thread and participate were comfortable with the connections as is. Those who did not participate in this map's production can now choose to play it or not. But please, before you go accusing folks of something, do your homework.

i agree with that the map is great and follows the good old KISS rule

Danyael wrote:

danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Panama canal

i followed the map but when i saw it i thought that is awesome nice and simple it stayed that way and enjoy that fact

the reason for posting that because its obvious and if you look at it realistically first thing comes to mind is panama canal is the passage from pa4 to at3 and the one that is in2 to pa1 huge boating passage between thailand and oceania it makes perfect sense!!

oaktown wrote:No, this is proof that not enough CC users take part in the mapmaking process. This map has been in the works for eight months, yet some critics choose to show up after the map has been quenched and make accusations about how this map received preferential treatment. Give me a break. I was the gameplay stamper on this one, and here is one of my many concerns about this map that received no support (from November 6):

This statement alone is proof of preferential treatment.. I havent read the thread all the way through but i will take your word for it.. No support since november 6th that makes 7 months to date aproxiamately.. Funny how there is a map in the foundry that consists of bow and arrows was not supported for a certain amount of time and had all stamps removed.. The last thing i want is toe to toe with you oak i like your maps but i would say you look better without that foot..

danfrank wrote:But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Many maps on Conquer Club are not "realistic" in any sense. World 2.1 doesn't have country in the world---it combines a number of to make certain regions. Caribbean Islands--the ships in the ocean should theoretically be able to assault any island, yeah? But they don't---some things are altered for game play reasons.

danfrank wrote:With all the petty scrutiny i read everday in the foundry , this map is proof that preferential treatment is given to certain members.. The graphics for starters is not up to par with what is being expected in the foundry.. Is this map drawn to scale? Much of the water territories are huge and therefore they take from areas where the circles dont even fit in the region.Also how were the attack routes figured out.. No part of the US can even attack the water .And the east coast of africa not attacking the water either. Now thats just silly. But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Due to my lack of slight inactivity I couldn't get to this earlier. I have always been very open minded about critical feedback however you post above isn't critical and I find it highly offence and insulting. If you are going to acuse me of benefitting of favoritism at least do it with some kind of critical thinking and not through your own biased (it would seem) opinion.

Sorry for being direct and a little offensive but you as a member of the community have offended me when all I have ever done it contribute to this site.

I hope you understand.

Last edited by gimil on Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Voryn wrote:Possibly fix the borders for ocean parts that touch land territories that they can't attack (example: IN2 and EU7.)

Their touching is unnecessary and confusing. Change the borders a bit, and for certain other instances (AT5/AT7/AF5 border, etc. etc.)

Other than stuff like that, good map. Maybe less confusing territory names than just the "codes," though.

Any thoughts on this comment?

--Andy

First of all, the arrows are the deciding factor so I don't see how it can be confusing. I think the request is arbitrary because IN1 touches EU5, AF4, and AF5 but that doesn't present a problem. Same goes for the opposite (lands touching the ocean). Arrows are distinct and clear.

Having the full names of territories being placed onto the map will make the image look very cluttered especially on the small map. Having the full names in the XML after the coded names is a good way we've added a bit more "flavour" and less confusion to the map. If you don't know your world map then I guess it doesn't help that much but it'll help you learn and it's something that'll be learned quicker than just the codes.

I just played this map for the first time. 3 game series on it. I won 2-1 due to dice in a 1 vs 1, but both players made many mistakes thinking that each area touching the water could attack it. Seems logical that it should be that way, but if not I understand this map is not about realism rather just another map to play. Reminds me of the not often played Extreme Global Warming.

Bruceswar wrote:I just played this map for the first time. 3 game series on it. I won 2-1 due to dice in a 1 vs 1, but both players made many mistakes thinking that each area touching the water could attack it

to me, that's a not reading the legend issue. we can't do anything about that. I think we've put everything in place for people to understand the map without too much thought. arrow means attack. people know the world and where land is and where water is. oreo.

Bruceswar wrote:I just played this map for the first time. 3 game series on it. I won 2-1 due to dice in a 1 vs 1, but both players made many mistakes thinking that each area touching the water could attack it

to me, that's a not reading the legend issue. we can't do anything about that. I think we've put everything in place for people to understand the map without too much thought. arrow means attack. people know the world and where land is and where water is. oreo.

Ahh yes the legend that part of the map people tune out. Nothing against it, but reality is 9/10 people never take the time to read it. Fault of the people, sure, but a map maker might be better off if he prepared for it. (In your case not 100% sure how you could achieve that other than to have what is natural to people) That is all water touches land and can be attacked both ways. But then again that changes the game play.

If some new player reads the legend in say AOR 2, then goes and plays a good game. 2 things usually happen. 1. He is reported as a multi2. The other player is usually not nice in chat.

Gilligan wrote:I haven't been keeping up with the discussion so I apologize if this was already said... Perhaps make them a bit darker and more noticeable?

I don't think the issue is that the arrows arn't noticable gill. I think the issue is that people are making the assumption that all land and sea territories are connected. Which means people arn't reading the legends, or arn't reading it efficently.

The only solution to this is some kind of distinction between connecting and non connecting terrs (which the arrows are suppose to do). Unfortunatly no matter what solution we have it will have to be put on the legends. If people arn't reading the legends that is their problem since no matter what alternative solution we come up with for differentiating between land and sea connectings people will still beed to read the legends to understand them anyway.